Gender-based violence

[ZeldaFighter]

I've come across this term several times in the last week or so and it is slightly unnerving me. The term I am accustomed to for this is "Violence against Women and Girls" or VAWG.

Here's what I'm guessing:
VAWG - clearly centres women and girls.
Gender-based violence - more "inclusive" by allowing a focus on violence against trans people. (Women and girls less centred)

Is this something women should be trying to resist? It waters down the clear emphasis on protecting women and girls, from implication by men.

Wouldn't violence against trans people better addressed separately?

Personally I think it’s always worth querying what is meant by the word “gender” wherever it is used. The word has come to mean entirely different things to different people so you can never be certain of meaning unless there is a definition available somewhere.

It should be treated separately. Including separate from violence against LGB people. That way we get accurate figures and people have a clearer view of the challenges each separate group faces.

It rubs me up the wrong way too. I mean arguably a man picking a fight with another man, is 'gender based'. They wouldn't, in some circumstances, have attacked a woman for that reason. And just like 'women' who are suddenly raping or abusing children, it muddies the water and makes accurate data impossible.

I was going to add 'women' committing indecent exposure but this is being facilitated by so many organisations I suspect it doesn't matter anymore.

Yes, it's unclear what exactly the term means. If 'gender' was still a euphemism for sex, it would be useful, as the basis for much crime is the sex of the perpetrator - VAGW slightly loses this. We can't say 'sex based crime' as that's quite reasonably likely to be interpreted as sexual crimes.

It doesn't make sense.

Women get attacked and Transwomen get attacked.

Most of the time the attackers are male.

The reasons for attacking woman and TW are surely not the same? We are attacked because we are female and TW are attacked because they are trying to identify out of their sex.

Both are awful. Both should be condemned and there should be support from the relevant agencies to try and reduce the instances of all.

But TW are kidding themselves if they think these are the same thing. There may be the odd occasion where a TW is mistaken for a female but really how often would this happen.

It is meant as a synonym for sex, in this context. It's often used by American NGOs to talk about VAWG, especially, say, in war zones. I don't know if anyone's now tried to attach it to trans issues, but that certainly wasn't the intended meaning.

. I don't know if anyone's now tried to attach it to trans issues,

Of course they have. See the recent threads re the remembrance for the Ecole Polytechnique massacre for instance.

Groan... Why am I not surprised? 😫

There probably isn't robust data on the motivations of men who attack other people, but it seems unlikely that homophobia isn't at the root of much actual transphobia and attacks on trans people.

VAWG is another phrase/acronym we need to continue to use and to defend its use. Gender based violence is about TW.

As pp said, ‘Gender based violence’ is meaningless because ‘gender’ has so many different uses.

VAWG is, I think, clear; but could be termed Male VAWG, or MVAWG if a writer thinks that’s needed for clarification.

As above, violence against TW needs to be split out. The motivation and mo is completely different, so it makes no sense to treat them as the same thing. Doing so damages both women and TW because any research data is corrupt, so any actions to address it are less effective, and harder to evaluate.

I’ve made this point on other threads, but trans supporters always complain - apparently being validated is more important than actually making progress in this area 😡 See the recent conference in Scotland as an example.

Gender based violence could also exclude Transmen who I would think are still vulnerable to male violence in the way that all women are, regardless of how they identify.

No one used question "gender based violence" as everyone knew that it meant violence against women. The term has been around far longer than VAWG, I think. But, unfortunately, we have to question and look into what they mean by it these days.

That would be sex based violence then.
Which it what we should be calling it.

Exactly. I totally agree.

My memory is that the term gender based violence far predates our current problem. According to the wikipedia article quoted below, for example, the term appears in the 1992 CEDAW. The intention is to highlight the role of gender in violence against women. We shouldn't forget that gender was originally used to describe differential power and roles allocated to the 2 sexes, a very useful analytical tool! We shouldn't let men steal this term from us!

In addition, the term gender-based violence refers to "any acts or threats of acts intended to hurt or make women suffer physically, sexually or psychologically, and which affect women because they are women or affect women disproportionately".[13] Gender-based violence is often used interchangeably with violence against women,[1] and some articles on VAW reiterate these conceptions by stating that men are the main perpetrators of this violence.[14] Moreover, the definition stated by the 1993 Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women also supported the notion that violence is rooted in the inequality between men and women when the term violence is used together with the term gender-based.[1]
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violence_against_women

Let’s just call it what it is- male violence towards women.

It winds me up and makes no impact when that term is used. VAWG is a specific category of gender based violence. Councils can get money for VAWG through the government then call it gender based.
See this FOI for Derby City that did exactly this.
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/decision_to_use_the_campaign_tit
And
www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/further_questions_on_the_decisio#incoming-2029221

There doesn't seem to be any further follow up.

Gender based violence was the term being taught when I was at medical school in the mid-2000s, at the time it was clear that this meant violence against women. I remember our tutor at the time saying she didn’t like the term but stated she preferred “intimate terrorism”. Which I do think is a good term for domestic abuse but not quite the same as VAWG.

Yeah I agree we need to keep focus on exactly what it is male violence against women and girls.

A few thoughts:
I think if you split it you lose a little bit of weight from the issue. If you want it treated , the only thing that usually helps is a sense of urgency and for that it can only be a good thing if numbers rise and it stands out more. That's why I think it would be helpful to keep them in the count. How you handle it afterwards, there is freedom on any path.
And the second point: In the minds of men, there is no difference. In terms of violence there definitely is though: In a lot of cases, men will turn violent against trans women when they are perceived as gay by their environment, because of the link to a trans woman. I think that's the main difference.

If you're going to reply, remain polite please. Insults I get plenty enough. thx.

Why do you keep resurrecting old threads?

I think if you split it you lose a little bit of weight from the issue. If you want it treated , the only thing that usually helps is a sense of urgency and for that it can only be a good thing if numbers rise and it stands out more

No. Violence against women and girls is due to their sex. How they present is irrelevant. These figures naturally include transmen who are vulnerable due to their female biology, like all women.

If transwomen are attacked by men that is male on male violence.
We don't need the numbers of attacked males including in the figures because violence against women and girls is already off the scale.

You'd think transwomen would want their figures separate so they can highlight the violence they receive. (and stop using the stats of south America prostitutes to falsify the figures).

In the UK at least, it seems there is far more violence BY males claiming to be women, against women and girls, than there is against transwomen. Who appear to be the safest demographic by far.

In terms of violence there definitely is though: In a lot of cases, men will turn violent against trans women when they are perceived as gay by their environment, because of the link to a trans woman. I think that's the main difference.

Yes, it's mostly rooted in homophobia, not misogyny directly. So they need to be considered separately.

Male violence against women and girls MVAWG. There is only one reason to use gender based and that is to remove the words women and girls.

The so called feminists in my area are trying to replace male with misogyny and still use MVAWG. We know why so they can include men who say they are women as victims.

Language Matters.
Sex Matters.

A transwoman and a gay man got attacked (by men) when out together a while ago. Very little was said about it by TRAs at the time that I remember. Despite it being a) an incidence of actual violence against a trans person and b) pretty clear that the attack was motivated by the males being gay or trans, rather than robbery or personal beef.

I guessed at the time it was because it was fairly obvious that a homophobic attacker would also have an issue with a transwoman. Which is a hard story to spin as being feminist's fault. And also reminds us that transwomen rarely pass.

There actually depressingly appears to be an uptick in homophobic attacks at the moment, at least that are reported by BBC.